G.R. No. 31763 , December 27, 1929
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. H. JANSSEN

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Reverend Father H. Janssen, a Catholic parish priest, solemnized the marriage of Pedro N. Cerdeña and Juana S. del Rosario on January 6, 1929, in San Jose, Antique. The marriage was celebrated under a license issued by the municipal secretary of San Jose on January 4, 1929. The Catholic Church’s required banns were published on December 30, 1928, and January 1, 1929. The Bishop of Jaro had granted a dispensation from the third banns on December 29, 1928, citing urgent reasons. The trial court convicted Janssen of violating Section 2 of Act No. 3412 for solemnizing the marriage without the ten-day publication of the marriage license application, as required by law, and for failing to ensure the license was issued by the municipal secretary of the bride’s habitual residence (allegedly Banga, Capiz, not San Jose, Antique).

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendant violated Section 2 of Act No. 3412 by solemnizing a marriage after only two publications of the banns, without waiting for a ten-day period.
2. Whether the defendant had a duty to investigate and verify the bride’s habitual residence to ensure the marriage license was issued by the proper municipal authority.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s judgment and ACQUITTED the defendant-appellant.

1. On the ten-day publication requirement: The Court held that the defendant did not violate Section 2 of Act No. 3412 . The law’s proviso states that if the contracting parties desire to marry in a church whose rules require prior banns or publications, the municipal secretary need not make the ten-day publication, and the license shall be issued immediately. The law does not require that the church’s own proclamation last for ten days; it only requires that the church’s practices mandate some form of proclamation. Since the Catholic Church requires banns (which were published twice, with the third dispensed by ecclesiastical authority), the ten-day municipal publication was unnecessary. Penal statutes must be strictly construed, and the law does not impose a ten-day duration for the church proclamation itself.

2. On the duty to verify the bride’s residence: The Court held that the law does not impose a duty on the solemnizing priest or minister to investigate whether the marriage license was issued by the municipal secretary of the bride’s habitual residence. It is sufficient for the solemnizing officer to know that the license was issued by a competent official. The law presumes that the issuing official has performed his duty to ascertain the residency of the applicants. Therefore, the defendant could rely on the license issued by the municipal secretary of San Jose.

DOCTRINE:
When a marriage is to be solemnized by a church, sect, or religion whose rules and practices require prior banns or proclamation, the ten-day publication of the marriage license application by the municipal secretary under Section 2 of Act No. 3412 is not required. It is sufficient that the church’s own required proclamation is made, regardless of its duration, unless the church’s rules themselves prescribe a specific period. Furthermore, a solemnizing officer is not obligated to verify the habitual residence of the applicants; he may presume that the official issuing the marriage license has regularly performed his official duty to determine the proper jurisdiction.